We have basically two levels of evolution. We have the level of evolution in which species and populations are involved, and then we have a level that is often referred to as ‘macro-evolution’, that is the origin of whole… whole new types of organisms, the development of new evolutionary inventions, innovations like wings on birds or like swim bladders in fishes or things like that. And there has been a argument among evolutionists, particularly by palaeontologists at… as to whether these macro-evolutionary phenomena that I have just referred to, can also be explained by the same mechanism, by the same populational approach as the… as evolution at the… as micro-evolution at the level of species and populations. And, in my own writings, both in the 1963 book and in the 1970 book and in anything I have published since, I have consistently emphasized that… that there is no break between the two. That all evolution takes place in populations, at least in sexually reproducing organisms, that it is always the either success or not of individuals that is involved, and it doesn't matter whether this is at the level of micro-evolution or in the process that leads to major macro-evolutionary changes. That, I think, for a long time was probably a minority viewpoint although Darwin already had emphasized it and all Darwinian evolutionists had always firmly believed in this. But since the majority of biologists and even… even greater majority of Darwinian lay… non-Darwinian lay people was very great, the belief that macro-evolution can be explained by the Darwinian explanation was, for a long time, the minority viewpoint. But I think and I hope that it is gradually becoming the majority viewpoint, but I have held it consistently.